UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. SHEO MURTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was originally directed against the order dated 8-10-77 passed by the Second Addl. District Judge, Pratapgarh, whereby he allowed the revision of the owners of the property in dispute, opposite parties 1 and 2, and cancelled the allotment order dated 16-5-1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority In favour of the petitioner. After setting aside the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner, the learned Addi. Distt. Judge directed the Prescribed Authority for disposing of the allotment matter afresh according to law taking in to account the observations made in the judgment. In pursuance of the direction made by the learned Additional District Judge, the Prescribed Authority, during the pendency of the writ petition, passed Order dated 5-12-77 by which It rejected the petitioner's application for allotment of the property in dispute. Thereafter an order was passed on 24-1-1978 by which the petitioner's revision directed against the order dated 5-12-1977 was rejected by the IV Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, Opposite Party no. 5. The instant petition is directed against orders dated 8-10-77, 5-12-77 and 24-1-1978.

(2.) THE dispute in the petition pertains to house no. 10/2 Shanker Sadan, Mohalla Babaganj, district Pratapgarh. This property fell vacant and the vacancy was notified on 30-4-1977. On 16-5-1977 the Prescribed Authority made an order of allotment in favour of the petitioner. On 17-5-1977 the owners moved an application for direction to the petitioner to make payment of presumptive rent. This application was allowed on the same date and one month's presumptive rent was paid by the petitioner to the owners. It appears that the petitioner obtained possession of the property in dispute on 21-5-1977. However, on 25-5-1977, the owners preferred a revision before the learned District Judge which came up for hearing before the Second Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh. Before the learned Additional District Judge an application was moved on behalf of the owners on 11-8-1977 through which it was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Judge that the petitioner had obtained allotment order In his favour by concealing a material fact. This material fact was stated to be the ejectment decree passed against the petitioner's father on 28-8-1976 in respect of an accommodation owned by some other landlord. THE learned Additional District Judge found that the averment made on behalf of the owners was correct. Observing that the petitioner concealed the disqualification which disentitled him to the order of allotment, the learned Addl. Distt. Judge cancelled the order of allotment made on 16-5-1977. After the remand order, the Prescribed Authority, has also rejected the petitioner's application for allotment on the same ground, namely, that in view of the ejectment decree passed against the petitioner's father, he was not entitled to an order of allotment for a period of two years. THE petitioner has assailed the orders referred to herein.

(3.) SRI Mirza next argued that the owners having got the presumptive rent determinated and having accepted one month's rent and having delivered possession to the petitioner are estopped from challenging the order of allotment passed in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, argued that the application for presumptive rent was moved in ignorance of the fact that a decree for ejectment had been passed against the petitioner's father. Learned counsel also argued that it was the duty of the petitioner himself to disclose this fact In bis application for allotment. The fact that the information was not given in the application for allotment by the petitioner is apparent from the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that the petitioner concealed the disqualification before the Prescribed Authority. On behalf of the petitioner a copy of the application for allotment moved by him has not been brought on the record by the learned Additional District Judge regarding concealment of the disqualification is incorrect From the material on record it does appear that initially the owners had no objection to the property in dispute being let out to the petitioner. However, when they acquired information of the fact that a decree for ejectment had been passed against the petitioner's father on the basis of default in payment of rent, they became reluctant to let out the property in favour of the petitioner. Since a statutory provision is there against allotment in favour of a person committing default in payment of rent, the opposite parties cannot be denied the right to place reliance upon the said provision.